Virgil Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 For me, this boils down into two camps. 1 - it's about the impact of the cheating, which is highly debatable 2 - it's about the fact that pats knew the rule, executed a plan to break it, then denied it. Regardless of the impact. I'm in the #2 camp. And the fact that they did this, plus spygate, plus the bs formations. I'm fine with the ruling. Not because I hate the Pats, but because the consistent middle finger to the league and acting better than everyone else. If the Bills did this, I'd be pissed. I'd rather lose with integrity than win a Super Bowl with Billicheat and Marsha
Kelly the Dog Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 For me, this boils down into two camps. 1 - it's about the impact of the cheating, which is highly debatable 2 - it's about the fact that pats knew the rule, executed a plan to break it, then denied it. Regardless of the impact. I'm in the #2 camp. And the fact that they did this, plus spygate, plus the bs formations. I'm fine with the ruling. Not because I hate the Pats, but because the consistent middle finger to the league and acting better than everyone else. If the Bills did this, I'd be pissed. I'd rather lose with integrity than win a Super Bowl with Billicheat and Marsha That's a good take and I totally agree except I'm not sure about the last line. This is about a history of cheating, bending the rules, arrogance, cheating again, getting caught, denying it, lying about it, and then still claiming we wuz robbed. No wonder people are pissed. That sequence of events is pissoffworthy.
Buffalo Barbarian Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 Let me begin by stating I am not in favor of a unanimously rose-colored, pie-in-the-sky forum in which everyone says only how great the Bills are and how horrible everything else is. There's a ton of great football talk around here in which I enjoy participating that includes critical analysis of the team and the organization. I "get" folks offering a perspective on the other side of the Pats** investigation. I understand some not wanting to simply label the team and its players "cheaters" because they believe any edge gained is/was negligible. What I don't understand, however, is the fervent, frothing desire of some to incessantly debate and pick squabbles in defense of Brady* and the Pats**. Somebody please explain. people like to argue
MattM Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 No time to read the entire thread, but even I must admit that some Pats** fans (Pneumonic comes to mind, at least off the Brady topic) come to talk football and make a decent contribution on both their team and general football issues. Heck, I even agree with WEO on occasion on non-Pats** items! There are others, however (Bill Brasky comes to mind), who must come to troll and add little to nothing to the conversation. I'm not a fan of banning opposing fans--Patsfans.com did that a few years back during Spygate and took it to an extreme. It made them look ridiculous.
Homey D. Clown Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 Let me begin by stating I am not in favor of a unanimously rose-colored, pie-in-the-sky forum in which everyone says only how great the Bills are and how horrible everything else is. There's a ton of great football talk around here in which I enjoy participating that includes critical analysis of the team and the organization. I "get" folks offering a perspective on the other side of the Pats** investigation. I understand some not wanting to simply label the team and its players "cheaters" because they believe any edge gained is/was negligible. What I don't understand, however, is the fervent, frothing desire of some to incessantly debate and pick squabbles in defense of Brady* and the Pats**. Somebody please explain. I won't be one of those people to defend Tom Brady in the least, and I think that team does waaaay more cheating than what's been caught, no doubt, but I really wished his 4 game suspension would not have affected when we play them, because Tom Brady is a very good QB whether you like him or not, and if we make it to the playoff this upcoming season, I don't want that to come with an asterisk of our own. I want to compete against the Best possible team when it xomes to them, simply because I have witnessed so many losses, that when we do beat them, we've beaten"Them", not a watered down, sissi-fied version. Did anyone really feel like we beat the Pats last year? That game sucked a horse's knee cap. If the Patriots needed that win for whatever reason, THAT is what I want this team to face. Now, the rest of the punishment I think was a bit weak. That team I'm certain is definitely doing more than what meets the eye that's not within the rules of the NFL.
papazoid Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 For me, this boils down into two camps. 1 - it's about the impact of the cheating, which is highly debatable 2 - it's about the fact that pats knew the rule, executed a plan to break it, then denied it. Regardless of the impact. I'm in the #2 camp. And the fact that they did this, plus spygate, plus the bs formations. I'm fine with the ruling. Not because I hate the Pats, but because the consistent middle finger to the league and acting better than everyone else. If the Bills did this, I'd be pissed. I'd rather lose with integrity than win a Super Bowl with Billicheat and Marsha The irony is that once the deflated footballs were removed at halftime of the AFC Championship Game, Brady's numbers improved dramatically. The Patriots didn't need deflated balls to throttle the Colts or beat the Seattle Seahawks in the Super Bowl. They didn't need the miniscule advantage Spygate afforded them, either. http://espn.go.com/boston/nfl/story/_/id/12837630/tom-brady-want-mulligan having said that, brady and belichick each should have gotten a 1 year suspension.
DC Tom Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 The irony is that once the deflated footballs were removed at halftime of the AFC Championship Game, Brady's numbers improved dramatically. The Patriots didn't need deflated balls to throttle the Colts or beat the Seattle Seahawks in the Super Bowl. They didn't need the miniscule advantage Spygate afforded them, either. http://espn.go.com/boston/nfl/story/_/id/12837630/tom-brady-want-mulligan So they didn't need to cheat...but they did anyway. Brilliant. having said that, brady and belichick each should have gotten a 1 year suspension.
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 the deflated ball MAY NOT be just about passing. next.. maybe the Colts flat out gave up in the 2nd half!! from the highlights they have been showing I see sloppy tackling in the rain or "out coached" or "out cheated" in another way.
Clippers of Nfl Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 the deflated ball MAY NOT be just about passing. next.. maybe the Colts flat out gave up in the 2nd half!! from the highlights they have been showing I see sloppy tackling in the rain or "out coached" or "out cheated" in another way. I prefer the Colts were outcheated.
Mr. WEO Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 No time to read the entire thread, but even I must admit that some Pats** fans (Pneumonic comes to mind, at least off the Brady topic) come to talk football and make a decent contribution on both their team and general football issues. Heck, I even agree with WEO on occasion on non-Pats** items! There are others, however (Bill Brasky comes to mind), who must come to troll and add little to nothing to the conversation. I'm not a fan of banning opposing fans--Patsfans.com did that a few years back during Spygate and took it to an extreme. It made them look ridiculous. Wait...you post non-pats items? I kid...
Recommended Posts